AE86 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:48 amGod has been virtually wiped out of the American public classroom ...

Yeah, let's shut down the tax havens, and increase the taxes across the board, so that you cannot afford any alternative any longer, and give ever more of your money to these fantastic "public services" where the kids first have to go through a metal detector so that they can be better indoctrinated in the nonsense that the politicians want them to believe:

You should become a tax-paying, man-made-law abiding citizen of this cesspool of ours!

Seriously, shut it down now already.

AE86 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:48 am

The problem with that is that the expansion rate of the universe is often calculated based on the rate of changing red shift from neighboring galaxies and stars. The reason this is a problem is because the values for each "red shifted" galaxy/star are quantised, meaning they're digital in nature and not analogue. This means that actual cause of the shift in wavelengths in light is not due to the doppler effect, and therefore renders the assumption that galaxy/star drift can be measured by red shift to be incorrect.

Thanks for that brilliant post on Christian science and how it likes to spread rumors.
It took me about 10 mins to find, but I think you got that from the Genesis Project and Barry Settlefield?

This from Wiki

Starlight problem

One of the largest problems facing the young Earth creationist theory is the starlight problem, which runs as follows: (1) there are galaxies billions of light-years from Earth, meaning it would take light from their stars billions of years to reach us; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived; (3) therefore the Universe must be billions of years old.[44] Alternative explanations are advanced by young Earth supporters. One is that God created starlight when he created the Universe six thousand years ago and the age of distant starlight is skewed because the Bible refers to God stretching the Universe (e.g. Isaiah 51:13.) Those who do not accept the biblical explanation of God stretching the Universe consider the age of distant starlight as deceptive and the explanation is not entirely satisfactory, as the first implies a God who deceives.[44] A second, posed by Barry Setterfield, that the speed of light was faster in the past than it is now (the theory is called C-decay, from the cosmological symbol C representing the speed of light).[44] Setterfield's theory, however, would produce consequences which have not been observed,[44] and has been refuted by other creationists such as Russell Humphreys.[45]

And

.Redshift quantization
Redshift quantization, also referred to as redshift periodicity,[1] redshift discretization,[2] preferred redshifts[3] and redshift-magnitude bands,[4][5] is the hypothesis that the redshifts of cosmologically distant objects (in particular galaxies and quasars) tend to cluster around multiples of some particular value.

In standard inflationary cosmological models, the redshift of cosmological bodies is ascribed to the expansion of the universe, with greater redshift indicating greater cosmic distance from the Earth (see Hubble's Law). This is referred to as cosmological redshift. Ruling out errors in measurement or analysis, quantized redshift of cosmological objects would either indicate that they are physically arranged in a quantized pattern around the Earth, or that there is an unknown mechanism for redshift unrelated to cosmic expansion, referred to as "intrinsic redshift" or "non-cosmological redshift".

In 1973, astronomer William G. Tifft was the first to report evidence of this pattern (note also: György Paál[6]). Recent discourse has focused upon whether redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have produced evidence of quantization in excess of what is expected due to selection effect or galactic clustering.[7][8][9][10]

Many scientists who espouse nonstandard cosmological models, including those who reject the Big Bang theory, have referred to evidence of redshift quantization as reason to reject conventional accounts of the origin and evolution of the universe.[11][12][13]

Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times. Although there are a handful of published articles in the last decade in support of quantization, those views are rejected by the rest of the field

I wouldn't at all be surprised if those published articles in the last decade, were funded by Christian Science movements.

You would have noticed that the reference I used was Christian Scientists loving to use the agenda that there is still a missing link in Darwinian theory. But if you want to use red shift as an example ok. You will notice that those views have been rejected by the rest of the field. I know, biased atheist hypocrites.

I certainly don't think science has all the answers, nor do I think it pretends to. My advice: don't read creationis texts, and stay well away from popularist newspapers.
Still, it's​ better than believing some guy with a big beard created everything in a few days. Lol. I know, there are a lot more theories used by Christians than that to prove they are right. Notice it's not could be right, like the majority of scientists.

Anyhow, do you believe in creationism because nothing so intricate and amazing as the Earth or life could have come from a random meaningless event? Therefore there must be a god?

Actually I found the information while reading about the speed of light and why it is possibly not constant, interest sparked from a BBC documentary "Faster than the speed of light." I think it was called. That got me on a journey reading about Einstein and the steady state universe (btw, NOVA has some great documentaries on Einstiens life), and after reading about the "cosmological constant", I started searching for topics on faster than the speed of light, ended up finding Barry Setterfield's work on the decreasing speed of light. I found Setterfield's work from a reference to him in a university lecture I believe discussing various theories on the speed of light, him being a "fringe" topic.

I'm obviously no expert either, but Setterfield presented such an interesting case (in my opinion) and those I saw trying to refute it didn't do much of a job. Again only my perspective, but all the "refutations" were mostly name calling and such, I dug into what he was saying further. So far I haven't seen a satisfactory case against what I've read from him, but again I'm not an expert.

I could be totally wrong though and that's fine. It's just the direction I lean as of now listening to both sides of what I've read.


Misc: I'm not interested in much of what Christian "science" has to say. I don't like those with a notion in their mind already and then set out to prove it by cherry picking, which is was the Christian "science" community does a hell of a lot. To be fair though, government funded science often does the same thing. Not a religious thing, just a human thing in my opinion.

Cutting up the Bible

I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect. The saddest example I know is that of the American geologist Kurt Wise, who now directs the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. It is no accident that Bryan College is named after William Jennings Bryan, prosecutor of the science teacher John Scopes in the Dayton 'Monkey Trial' of 1925. Wise could have fulfilled his boyhood ambition to become a professor of geology at a real university, a university whose motto might have been 'Think critically' rather than the oxymoronic one displayed on the Bryan website: 'Think critically and biblically'. Indeed, he obtained a real degree in geology at the University of Chicago, followed by two higher degrees in geology and paleontology at Harvard (no less) where he studied under Stephen Jay Gould (no less). He was a highly qualified and genuinely promising young scientist, well on his way to achieving his dream of teaching science and doing research at a proper university.
Then tragedy struck. It came, not from outside but from within his own mind, a mind fatally subverted and weakened by a fundamentalist religious upbringing that required him to believe that the Earth - the subject of his Chicago and Harvard geological education - was less than ten thousand years old. He was too intelligent not to recognize the head-on collision between his religion and his science, and the conflict in his mind made him increasingly uneasy. One day, he could bear the strain no more, and he clinched the matter with a pair of scissors. He took a bible and went right through it, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific world-view were true. At the end of this ruthlessly honest and labour-intensive exercise, there was so little left of his bible that, 

try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible ... It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science

.

R.Dawkins.

Sorry for replying to this after your post, I missed this part in the morning rush of things.

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:05 pm You would have noticed that the reference I used was Christian Scientists loving to use the agenda that there is still a missing link in Darwinian theory. But if you want to use red shift as an example ok. You will notice that those views have been rejected by the rest of the field. I know, biased atheist hypocrites.

Firstly I want to state I grew up atheist, I've been to church and rejected it and still don't attend church, and pretty much everyone who knows will describe me as anti-religious (yes, even Stroppy who I met with recently). Nice man by the way, and he doesn't come across as holier than thou Christian. He's the good type of Christian who I can deal with, which are few and far between in my opinion.

I spend time talking about that because we often get the wrong impression in our heads about who we're talking to, especially on a forum, so when I bring up a point that might support the Christian side of things, it's easy to label me as a Bible thumping preachy apologist type. Nothing could be further than the truth, and I don't think it's a stretch of the mind to imagine a Japanese anti-religious person. That describes pretty much all of us.

HOWEVER, saying something is rejected by the field isn't an argument. Galileo was ostracised by the church because he challenged the narrative, and if you don't think there is a lot of money invested in the narrative by the state (i.e. grants, departments, tenure, etc) then you're naive at best. "Scientists" are not merely for the good of the people, they're often watching out for their own careers and reputations just like any other vested interest. Most people are like this, when it comes down to crunch time, they'll save their own heads and let the rest burn, Christians included.

I'm not saying you're wrong on this point, but remember people like Copernicus, Einstein, Humphrey Davy, Mendeleev, etc. all had their sharp opposition from the "rest of the field". That's why they're known now as modern revolutionaries.

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:05 pm I certainly don't think science has all the answers, nor do I think it pretends to. My advice: don't read creationis texts, and stay well away from popularist newspapers.
Still, it's​ better than believing some guy with a big beard created everything in a few days. Lol. I know, there are a lot more theories used by Christians than that to prove they are right. Notice it's not could be right, like the majority of scientists.

We absolutely agree here too. I personally like science a lot more because it often (not always) deals in facts, whereas the religious establishment deals mainly in blind faith and submission. To be fair to Christians though, the term "submission" is a lot more closely equated to Islam, which actually means "submission".

Another point to make though, the whole "big bearded man in the sky" thing seems to be much more closely tied to Greek mythology and paganism, which was then just assimilated into mainstream Christianity somehow. Like the Christmas tree nonsense. There's no mention of God being a man with a beard (sorry Stroppy )

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:05 pm Anyhow, do you believe in creationism because nothing so intricate and amazing as the Earth or life could have come from a random meaningless event? Therefore there must be a god?

My answer is yes and no.

Yes I lean towards intelligent design (ID) as making more sense vs. the extremely rapid expansion "creating" all matter in the universe, but no, I do not believe in a floating man in the sky who controls everything, nor will I ever jump to that conclusion without evidence, absolutely not. I think that's religious nonsense meant to scare sheep into giving clergymen funds to be honest.

However, the reason I believe ID has some credibility to it has to do with the nature of DNA and not only the code contained within it, but the very nature of it's construction. Think about the infinite monkeys example typing Shakespeare and you'll get an idea. I know it's a hotly contested field, but being a mechanic and having had to actually design and maintain machines before (much less complex), I find the argument of infinite monkeys typing Hamlet to be as weak of an argument as inifinite particles of iron, aluminium and rubber glomming together and "creating" my little Mitsubshi.

Seriously, even with sentient beings and language capability in this country can't keep an already designed and built car running, so I don't see how the laws of physics simply unguided can "create" anything, especially when entropy is a known factor in the universe as well.

That's my take.

More on the Infinite Monkey Theorem

There is a straightforward proof of this theorem. As an introduction, recall that if two events are statistically independent, then the probability of both happening equals the product of the probabilities of each one happening independently. For example, if the chance of rain in Moscow on a particular day in the future is 0.4 and the chance of an earthquake in San Francisco on any particular day is 0.00003, then the chance of both happening on the same day is 0.4 × 0.00003 = 0.000012, assuming that they are indeed independent.

Suppose the typewriter has 50 keys, and the word to be typed is banana. If the keys are pressed randomly and independently, it means that each key has an equal chance of being pressed. Then, the chance that the first letter typed is 'b' is 1/50, and the chance that the second letter typed is a is also 1/50, and so on. Therefore, the chance of the first six letters spelling banana is

(1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) = (1/50)6 = 1/15 625 000 000 ,
less than one in 15 billion, but not zero, hence a possible outcome.

From the above, the chance of not typing banana in a given block of 6 letters is 1 − (1/50)6. Because each block is typed independently, the chance Xn of not typing banana in any of the first n blocks of 6 letters is

{\displaystyle X_{n}=\left(1-{\frac {1}{50^{6}}}\right)^{n}.} X_n=\left(1-\frac{1}{50^6}\right)^n.
As n grows, Xn gets smaller. For an n of a million, Xn is roughly 0.9999, but for an n of 10 billion Xn is roughly 0.53 and for an n of 100 billion it is roughly 0.0017. As n approaches infinity, the probability Xn approaches zero; that is, by making n large enough, Xn can be made as small as is desired,[2][note 1] and the chance of typing banana approaches 100%.

The same argument shows why at least one of infinitely many monkeys will produce a text as quickly as it would be produced by a perfectly accurate human typist copying it from the original. In this case Xn = (1 − (1/50)6)n where Xn represents the probability that none of the first n monkeys types banana correctly on their first try. When we consider 100 billion monkeys, the probability falls to 0.17%, and as the number of monkeys n increases, the value of Xn – the probability of the monkeys failing to reproduce the given text – approaches zero arbitrarily closely. The limit, for n going to infinity, is zero. So the probability of the word banana appearing at some point after an infinite number of keystrokes is equal to one.

eriksank wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:48 pm

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:21 pm...cannot possibly end poverty...

By definition, people with less than 60% of the median income are poor. There will alway be people with 60% less income than the median. Hence, it is indeed impossible to end poverty.

It's only impossible within the current financial models, ie capitalism/unfettered capitalism and a money system.

Theoretically, it's perfectly possible, if all the wealth is shared equally and the money system is radically changed or abolished.

But extremely unlikely, given human nature.

juansweetpotato wrote: More on the Infinite Monkey Theorem

Spoiler:

There is a straightforward proof of this theorem. As an introduction, recall that if two events are statistically independent, then the probability of both happening equals the product of the probabilities of each one happening independently. For example, if the chance of rain in Moscow on a particular day in the future is 0.4 and the chance of an earthquake in San Francisco on any particular day is 0.00003, then the chance of both happening on the same day is 0.4 × 0.00003 = 0.000012, assuming that they are indeed independent.

Suppose the typewriter has 50 keys, and the word to be typed is banana. If the keys are pressed randomly and independently, it means that each key has an equal chance of being pressed. Then, the chance that the first letter typed is 'b' is 1/50, and the chance that the second letter typed is a is also 1/50, and so on. Therefore, the chance of the first six letters spelling banana is

(1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) = (1/50)6 = 1/15 625 000 000 ,
less than one in 15 billion, but not zero, hence a possible outcome.

From the above, the chance of not typing banana in a given block of 6 letters is 1 − (1/50)6. Because each block is typed independently, the chance Xn of not typing banana in any of the first n blocks of 6 letters is

{\displaystyle X_{n}=\left(1-{\frac {1}{50^{6}}}\right)^{n}.} X_n=\left(1-\frac{1}{50^6}\right)^n.
As n grows, Xn gets smaller. For an n of a million, Xn is roughly 0.9999, but for an n of 10 billion Xn is roughly 0.53 and for an n of 100 billion it is roughly 0.0017. As n approaches infinity, the probability Xn approaches zero; that is, by making n large enough, Xn can be made as small as is desired,[2][note 1] and the chance of typing banana approaches 100%.

The same argument shows why at least one of infinitely many monkeys will produce a text as quickly as it would be produced by a perfectly accurate human typist copying it from the original. In this case Xn = (1 − (1/50)6)n where Xn represents the probability that none of the first n monkeys types banana correctly on their first try. When we consider 100 billion monkeys, the probability falls to 0.17%, and as the number of monkeys n increases, the value of Xn – the probability of the monkeys failing to reproduce the given text – approaches zero arbitrarily closely. The limit, for n going to infinity, is zero. So the probability of the word banana appearing at some point after an infinite number of keystrokes is equal to one.

I agree with your maths, and that is why I think it speaks towards a designer much more for the following reason.

You use the case "Banana.", and one thing to note here is that if you were simply extend that sentence (i.e.) this one, you would have a 112 character sequence." (excluding this part, capitalisation and spaces).

The longer the sequence gets, the chance of it being "correct" are exponentially less. So using your maths let's see where it takes us:

(1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x

...and you end up with 3 x 10^158.

Now there's only been 10^26 nanoseconds since the Big Bang (1 billion nanoseconds per second), so even if every nanosecond was dedicated to the random keystrokes by a now 14.7 billion year old monkey we're still off by a factor of 132 at forming even a 112 letter sentence, excluding capitalisation and spaces.

One short protein chain in DNA (excluding chirality "handedness") can consist of 150-200 amino acids, all of which need to assemble in a sequence specific manner, it is safe to say it is vastly more complex than a sentence of the English language on a Cambodian expat forum. So given the statistical absurdity (btw, 10^50 is statistically absurd) of a monkey typing a simple 112 character sentence, I find it much more believable that there was intelligence behind the design of the DNA in our bodies, just as I would never attribute the works of Shakespeare (or even this post for that matter) to the work of an infinite monkey powered text generating entity.

You mention theoretical maths, but DNA is already a physical reality just as people type readable sentences every day. Sure if we had close to infinite time and infinite monkeys (of which there's nowhere near enough evidence to even come close to arguing for such), we might reach a chance of something like a DNA molecule occurring. The point is though, just by observation we can see that is not the nature of where we live and exist in.

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:49 amI am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise.

.
The term fundamentalist is impredicative ("could not possibly have a definition"). Hence, it is what George Orwell so beautifully describes in Politics and the English language as a meaningless word. As you know, Orwell establishes that the only purpose of meaningless words is to praise or to blackmouth. It is politics at its worst.

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:26 am More on the Infinite Monkey Theorem

There is a straightforward proof of this theorem. As an introduction, recall that if two events are statistically independent, then the probability of both happening equals the product of the probabilities of each one happening independently. For example, if the chance of rain in Moscow on a particular day in the future is 0.4 and the chance of an earthquake in San Francisco on any particular day is 0.00003, then the chance of both happening on the same day is 0.4 × 0.00003 = 0.000012, assuming that they are indeed independent.

Suppose the typewriter has 50 keys, and the word to be typed is banana. If the keys are pressed randomly and independently, it means that each key has an equal chance of being pressed. Then, the chance that the first letter typed is 'b' is 1/50, and the chance that the second letter typed is a is also 1/50, and so on. Therefore, the chance of the first six letters spelling banana is

(1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) = (1/50)6 = 1/15 625 000 000 ,
less than one in 15 billion, but not zero, hence a possible outcome.

From the above, the chance of not typing banana in a given block of 6 letters is 1 − (1/50)6. Because each block is typed independently, the chance Xn of not typing banana in any of the first n blocks of 6 letters is

{\displaystyle X_{n}=\left(1-{\frac {1}{50^{6}}}\right)^{n}.} X_n=\left(1-\frac{1}{50^6}\right)^n.
As n grows, Xn gets smaller. For an n of a million, Xn is roughly 0.9999, but for an n of 10 billion Xn is roughly 0.53 and for an n of 100 billion it is roughly 0.0017. As n approaches infinity, the probability Xn approaches zero; that is, by making n large enough, Xn can be made as small as is desired,[2][note 1] and the chance of typing banana approaches 100%.

The same argument shows why at least one of infinitely many monkeys will produce a text as quickly as it would be produced by a perfectly accurate human typist copying it from the original. In this case Xn = (1 − (1/50)6)n where Xn represents the probability that none of the first n monkeys types banana correctly on their first try. When we consider 100 billion monkeys, the probability falls to 0.17%, and as the number of monkeys n increases, the value of Xn – the probability of the monkeys failing to reproduce the given text – approaches zero arbitrarily closely. The limit, for n going to infinity, is zero. So the probability of the word banana appearing at some point after an infinite number of keystrokes is equal to one.

I'm quietly enjoying the theological discussion in this thread without participating or influencing, and so will stay with pure mathematics here.

Your premise, based on your mathematical proof, is flawed. You are arguing that each potential variation in letters in an infinite array will be visited at least once, and possibly only once. In this case, you're suggesting an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters WILL produce Hamlet at least once. Your argument and proof are actually closer to infinite universes theory than probabilities in this universe.

Toss a coin 20 times and get heads. What are the odds that the next toss is tails? Your model suggests you will get tails is highly likely, but the actual odds are still 50/50. Random events are not in any way influenced by previous occurrences, or even occurrences happening simultaneously around the event to be tested. So an infinite number of monkeys could and would simply hit random keys into the future, without ever producing even the word banana, let alone Hamlet.